Which Types are These?

Type 1: Whether they are in law, management, academia, to this type, other people are basically just cockroaches to step on. They will stoop to the most underhanded means necessary to get their way. Whether it's stabbing people in the back when they are not looking, or "getting even" when someone can't defend themselves. Then, when the tables are turned, their motto is "have mercy for me" in the most servile way - when they don't have mercy for anyone else...

Type 2: Someone else is the most despicable, underhanded person possible, but to this type they are "deserving of mercy" because "they have problems" - regardless of their situation. OTOH, for the people that are victimized, nothing is said by this type, nothing is done, not even a single thought is put into helping anyone else, but the person victimizing others is always "innocent" and "in need of help."

Type 3: I am loud, attention-grabbing person. Often sexually promiscuous. I have the same issues as type 1. I will stoop to any means necessary to stab someone in the back, but when the tables are turned I act like I'm innocent. If the finger is pointed at me, it's the same stuff that "I didn't do it" or "please have mercy for me!"

Type 4: I am big-time beaureaucrat. My life is just filled with all of these rules-of-thumb. However, I don't have a drop of creativity and couldn't think outside-the-box if my life depended on it. I have the same problem as type 1, where I come down hard on people and could care less about it... (Think of the airport manager from the movie "The Terminal")

These are four types I sometimes run into. I am just curious what their socionics types are...

Types 1 is some pastiche of Se valuing types. Your problem seems to be how they seek success at any cost, and treat themselves differently from others, which is opposed to NeSi(+Ti). There might be a bit of Fi in there too.

Type 2 might be some Se valuer other than Se leading, such as Beta NF or ESI.

Types 1 is some pastiche of Se valuing types. Your problem seems to be how they seek success at any cost, and treat themselves differently from others, which is opposed to NeSi(+Ti). There might be a bit of Fi in there too.

Type 2 might be some Se valuer other than Se leading, such as Beta NF or ESI.

Type 3 might be specifically Se leading or EIE.

Type 4 - LSI probably.

I think you remain under an impression that Se = shithead. It doesn’t.

I think the OP is posting their own judgments (Fi) of how they see these people. It is a subjective evaluation of people they dislike. Therefore they can't be typed based on a paragraph of OP's values judgments. I think it says more about the OP's preferences than anything.

I think the OP is posting their own judgments (Fi) of how they see these people. It is a subjective evaluation of people they dislike. Therefore they can't be typed based on a paragraph of OP's values judgments. I think it says more about the OP's preferences than anything.

Even as Se-PoLR, there are a whole bunch of Se-egos that I like: Jason Statham, ("World's Smartest Man") Christopher Langan, Dwayne Johnson, John Cena, basketball player "Birdman," football coach Mike Singletary, even Liam Neeson - "Taken" is one of my all-time favourite movies. And then the sexy, outspoken E7 Se types: Katy Perry, Madonna, Kate Winslet, Megan Fox, etc. I just simply cannot stand someone who is a complete a**hole. I therefore cannot stand: a lot of Robert De Niro's characters (e.g., "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull"), Gordon Ramsay, 'Judge Judy,' 'Miss Daisy,' 'Anton Chighurr' from "No Country for Old Men" and 'Alonzo Harris' from "Training Day." And there are people who are not traditionally Se who I cannot stand. For instance, the personalities of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are very close to me and their philosophies could not be more sickening...

Therefore: 1) with all of those examples I have given, I don't think it is simply about Se. 2) As an 'Alpha NT,' and therefore a logical, creative person, am I expected to watch "No Country for Old Men" and feel absolutely nothing? I mean, am I supposed to be a cold-blooded sociopath? That is almost what is expected...

I also remember the when I studied the MBTI. It was always the "thinking types" that I minded - the ones associated with cruelty and abuse, but I couldn't explain why I liked a lot of the ENTPs and INTPs. "But aren't they thinking types just like those other abusive types?" It didn't compute.

In fact, every one of the a**hole's mentioned - "thinking types" under the old rubric.

And now the same thing with 'Se': "How are Jason Statham Anton Chighurr alike? I like Statham. I cannot stand "No Country for Old men." How are they both 'Se'?"

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Whatever the real nature of this function is, it just floats from one Jungian function to the next, without anyone being able to pinpoint what it really is...

I can just see it in the next theory, it's just going to be the same thing again with a different function. And I will once again be 'Fi-PoLR' or 'Ti-PoLR' or whatever...

Even as Se-PoLR, there are a whole bunch of Se-egos that I like: Jason Statham, ("World's Smartest Man") Christopher Langan, Dwayne Johnson, John Cena, basketball player "Birdman," football coach Mike Singletary, even Liam Neeson - "Taken" is one of my all-time favourite movies. And then the sexy, outspoken E7 Se types: Katy Perry, Madonna, Kate Winslet, Megan Fox, etc. I just simply cannot stand someone who is a complete a**hole. I therefore cannot stand: a lot of Robert De Niro's characters (e.g., "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull"), Gordon Ramsay, 'Judge Judy,' 'Miss Daisy,' 'Anton Chighurr' from "No Country for Old Men" and 'Alonzo Harris' from "Training Day." And there are people who are not traditionally Se who I cannot stand. For instance, the personalities of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are very close to me and their philosophies could not be more sickening...

Therefore: 1) with all of those examples I have given, I don't think it is simply about Se. 2) As an 'Alpha NT,' and therefore a logical, creative person, am I expected to watch "No Country for Old Men" and feel absolutely nothing? I mean, am I supposed to be a cold-blooded sociopath? That is almost what is expected...

I also remember the when I studied the MBTI. It was always the "thinking types" that I minded - the ones associated with cruelty and abuse, but I couldn't explain why I liked a lot of the ENTPs and INTPs. "But aren't they thinking types just like those other abusive types?" It didn't compute.

In fact, every one of the a**hole's mentioned - "thinking types" under the old rubric.

And now the same thing with 'Se': "How are Jason Statham Anton Chighurr alike? I like Statham. I cannot stand "No Country for Old men." How are they both 'Se'?"

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Whatever the real nature of this function is, it just floats from one Jungian function to the next, without anyone being able to pinpoint what it really is...

I can just see it in the next theory, it's just going to be the same thing again with a different function. And I will once again be 'Fi-PoLR' or 'Ti-PoLR' or whatever...

When I said it said more about you I was not attempting to type you anything specific. I was noting you have a particular worldview that does affect how you describe other people. If we asked the friends of those people it is very possible another "type" would be described. See what I mean? What you were expressing looked like Fi which all people use in some form. I have seen your posts over the years so this is not the first time I have noticed the way you have described others. I didn't say anything about you disliking Se, that was @thehotelambush.

@jason_m you seem to have a similar confusion. You dislike a particular manifestation of Se - not Se in general. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I find that this is the case for almost every type or function. For instance, almost everyone who has been typed ILE as a consensus I like, but there are still exceptions. Gammas I often don't like, but there are many exceptions. There are betas I like and betas I don't like. It seems like every function I either value/don't value simply has a manifestation that I value/don't value and that's it... I simply could not make the theory fit if it were not this way, so there are plenty of exceptions...

When I said it said more about you I was not attempting to type you anything specific. I was noting you have a particular worldview that does affect how you describe other people. If we asked the friends of those people it is very possible another "type" would be described. See what I mean? What you were expressing looked like Fi which all people use in some form. I have seen your posts over the years so this is not the first time I have noticed the way you have described others. I didn't say anything about you disliking Se, that was @thehotelambush.

I find that this is the case for almost every type or function. For instance, almost everyone who has been typed ILE as a consensus I like, but there are still exceptions. Gammas I often don't like, but there are many exceptions. There are betas I like and betas I don't like. It seems like every function I either value/don't value simply has a manifestation that I value/don't value and that's it... I simply could not make the theory fit if it were not this way, so there are plenty of exceptions...

Yeah, that's true about the whole theory. Human relationships are messy and involve other factors than socionics.

Human relationships are messy and involve other factors than socionics.

"If you ever get close to a human
And human behavior
Be ready, be ready to get confused
And me and my hereafter
There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behavior"

4w3 7w6 9w1 so/sx

"You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity. Indeed that's what we provide in our own modest, humble, insignificant... oh, fuck it."

"If you ever get close to a human
And human behavior
Be ready, be ready to get confused
And me and my hereafter
There's definitely, definitely, definitely no logic
To human behavior"

I think she implies that in order to describe process of being human is set of processes that makes things very jumbled up on top of that our bodies (maybe frequently) misfires signals while detectors that we also have are faulty and lacking in resolution in order to keep us functional [keeping energy consumption in check] enough in biological framework which also evolves quite slowly.